But even in these circumstances, the budget deal released by the House of Representatives not only keeps transit whole, it actually raises funding. With some hard-right House Republicans refusing to support the package, Democrats were able to secure some spending priorities in return for their votes.

The Federal Transit Administration would get a $1 billion budget boost to $13.5 billion annually. Of that funding, $10.3 billion would be distributed by formula to transit agencies. Another $2.65 billion would be divvied up as grants to support specific transit capital improvements and expansions.

The funding level for transit capital projects is especially high compared to recent years, according to transit analyst Yonah Freemark:

$1.3 billion for Amtrak National Network

$10.3 billion for transit formula grants

$2.64 billion for New Starts transit capital grants—biggest number we've seen in years, and double Trump budget proposal

Cities that have recently voted to increase local taxes to expand and improve transit — including Atlanta, Indianapolis, and Seattle — should be able to proceed with those projects as planned if this budget passes. It should also reassure cities like Nashville, where voters will head to the polls this spring to decide on a transit expansion package.

The House budget also triples funding for the TIGER program to $1.5 billion. Under Trump, however, TIGER has become a much more conventional road funding program than it was under the Obama administration, when the funding mix was tilted more toward walking, biking, and transit projects.

In addition, the bill maintains $1.3 billion in annual support for Amtrak while adding $650 million for upgrades to the Northeast Corridor, some of which could support the Gateway tunnel linking New Jersey and Manhattan. The bill would also include $35 million to restore service along the Florida Gulf Coast. (Trump had singled out Amtrak for $650 million in cuts.)

Finally, the package would provide $250 million for positive train control, following several years where Congress didn’t supply a penny to fund its mandate for this railroad safety tech.

I don’t think its fear mongering when both the White House’s proposed budget and the initial Republican House budget cut transit to the bone, and to get it and other spending back, Democrats had to sacrifice DACA. Something that will inevitably massively hurt the long term prospects of centrist Democrats. Let’s not mince words about what happened here.

I think you’re conflating issues. Presidential budgets are by definition DOA. DACA is a whole different kettle of fish and not related to transit. What House proposal are you talking about? I understand the noise makers will make noise about lot of things but I have no knowledge of any ‘real’ spending bills that cut transit.

The FAST Act passed in December of 2015 and passed out of the Republican House by a vote of 359-65. Not only was this just confirmed but additional money has been added to the pot. The only notable change is that TIGER will be allocated more to road/bridge projects than in the past but that’s a small price to pay.

Theoretically if you print too much money you could get inflation, but if you issue too many T-bills you get the same amount of inflation. We printed the T-bills and we didn’t get too much inflation. Therefore there’s no problem.

T-bills are money. They’re not really debt.

Please, Larry, learn modern monetary theory. It’ll open your mind.

—–
The issue with tax cuts for billionaires is different. The issue is that they let the billionaires have so much money and power than they can buy Congressmen. It is imperative to have tax rates set so that nobody is rich enough to buy a Congressman.

I’m genuinely confused by what this means? No doubt I’m not bright enough to understand, but it would seem as though you’re arguing that among the suitable reasons for higher taxes is “to keep growth stable” as though considerable growth is a bad thing. Why wouldn’t we want a surging economy? Is it possible that you believe some people would be left behind–and, if that’s the case, is it possible that it’s because these people fundamentally contribute little to nothing to the economy?

When an economy grows, virtually everyone who either works are owns assets stands to benefit. No doubt they don’t benefit equally, but they never do–even amidst programs of massive wealth distribution.

Rapid economic growth tends to be inflationary, which is why traditionally why central banks taper the interest rates up as growth rates increase – and the Federal Reserve has been doing that. However, higher interest rates are going disproportionately to harm many still debt-laden borrowers, including poor people and many local governments. This is in the face in the face of decades of pretty stagnant wage growth.

If the House, Senate, and President Obama don’t agree on a course of action by the end of this week, the U.S. will be left with no federal budget, and the government will shut down. Transit agencies and construction interests don’t seem alarmed, but the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials estimates that […]

Yesterday the American Public Transportation Association reported that Americans made more transit trips in 2013 than in any other year since 1956. Of course, per capita ridership is still low compared to the 1950s, and we’re nowhere near the ridership peaks of the 1940s. But when transit trips increase 1.1 percent while population rises 0.7 percent, you […]

Donald Trump's first budget will reportedly follow a blueprint for extreme spending cuts laid out by the Heritage Foundation. That could spell disaster for cities, since Heritage recommends eliminating federal support for transit.

Welcome to Sequestration Week. Congress has until Friday to strike a deal that would avoid a set of dreaded automatic budget cuts. The president is blaming the crisis on House Republicans, who are in turn laying blame on Senate Democrats. Unlike any number of previous budget crises, no one really thinks that Washington can pull […]